Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby justdrew » Sun May 05, 2013 4:05 pm

yeah, I don't seem to recall ANY of the """liberty""" (in triple double-quotes for YOUR protection) folks like Brandon Smith having anything to say about the outrageous treatment of protestors at the RNC convention in NY, or of occupy protestors.

It's also possibly noteworthy for individuals seduced by such wormtounged pedagogy to consider that the whole message of that piece fits squarely with standard Republican party lines. Why might that be?

No they use some of the right words, but what they're on about is completely off base.

I URGE people to think about it for a minute.

anyway, there's a long established movement for the reform of Police activities, it's not right wing at all. You could look into that.

http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/coollinks.html
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby conniption » Tue May 14, 2013 5:04 pm

Updating this story from page 3:

conniption wrote:
wfsb

Tense Calif. town hunts for killer of 8-year-old

By JOHN S. MARSHALL
Associated Press
Apr 29, 2013


Image
Map locates Valley Springs, Ca. Map locates Valley Springs, Ca.


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Law enforcement patrols have been increased outside a school in a small Northern California town where a search is continuing for a man suspected of stabbing an 8-year-old girl to death.

Deputies from the Calaveras County Sheriff's Office on Monday were deployed outside Jenny Lind Elementary School in Valley Springs, as classmates of the victim, Leila Fowler, returned to school.

Grief counselors were also expected to be available at the school. A class of sixth-graders placed ribbons outside to remember Fowler, a third-grader.

Authorities say Leila was fatally stabbed at her home in Valley Springs on Saturday during an apparent break-in. The girl was found by her older brother who told deputies that he had encountered a male intruder in the home.

Authorities have issued a vague description of a suspect but have not been able to identify the man.

After door-to-door sweeps proved fruitless, law officers urged residents of a small town in Northern California to lock their doors and keep a close eye on streets and yards for a man who stabbed an 8-year-old girl to death in her house.

The attacker, only described as wearing a black shirt and blue pants, was the subject of a broad search Sunday by the sheriff's departments of Calaveras and surrounding counties, the California Highway Patrol and the state Department of Justice.

Leila Fowler was stabbed to death on Saturday at the home in Valley Springs, Coroner Kevin Raggio said. Sheriff's officials say investigators have collected fingerprints and what they believe is DNA from the home. Calaveras County Sheriff's Capt. Jim Macedo told the Modesto Bee authorities hope to have lab results on the evidence in a week.

"This is way too close to home," Julia Poland, who took her 13-year-old daughter to an afternoon news conference on the search, told the Bee. "This kind of thing does not happen here."

Leila was found by her brother - reported by local media to be 12 years old - after he encountered a male intruder in the home. When the intruder ran away, the boy found his sister stabbed. She was pronounced dead at a local hospital, officials said.

Authorities spent Saturday night and into Sunday conducting a door-to-door sweep of homes scattered across hilly terrain, checking storage sheds and horse stables, and even searching attics.

"It is a difficult area to search, it's rural, remote," sheriff's Capt. Jim Macedo said.

Mass notifications alerted residents about the attack and the search for the suspect, officials said.

"I was working on my tractor and a CHP copter kept flying over my house," Roger Ballew, 35, told The Associated Press on Sunday.

A SWAT team showed up at his house Saturday night and told him to stay inside.

"It was nerve-racking, I didn't sleep well," Ballew said.

Investigators on Sunday were interviewing several people, but no suspects had been named by late afternoon. Detectives were checking out tips that had come in to the sheriff's office, including possible leads from outside the county, officials said.

"It's just terrible," resident Paul Gschweng told Sacramento television station KCRA. "What can I say about it, it's just a tragedy."

The station reported that a neighbor told police that a man was running from the girl's home after the attack.

Investigators were asking area residents to call authorities if they had any information, knew of anyone who had unexplained injuries or may have left the area unexpectedly after the girl was killed.

Valley Springs is a community of about 2,500 people in an unincorporated area of Calaveras County, known as "Gold Country," in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, about 60 miles southeast of Sacramento.

The county became world-famous in 1865 with Mark Twain's short story, "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County," according to the Calaveras County Chamber of Commerce website.


*
Here is the Update:

Brother Arrested in Fatal Stabbing of 8-year-old Valley Springs Girl

The Calaveras County Sheriff's Dept. has arrested the 12-year-old brother of Leila Fowler who was mysteriously stabbed to death at her home in Valley Springs on April 27th.

(Sacramento, CA)
Saturday, May 11, 2013


The Calaveras County Sheriff's Department has made an arrest in the brutal stabbing death of 8 year-old Leila Fowler. Detectives arrested Fowler's 12-year-old brother shortly after 5 p.m. Saturday.

Sheriff Gary Kuntz made the announcement in front of the Valley Springs substation. It has been 15 days since Leila Fowler was reported murdered. Kuntz told reporters at a news conference that the 12-year-old boy will be charged with homicide.

The boy had told police last month that he encountered an intruder in the home on the day Leila Fowler was killed. He described the man as being tall with long gray hair.

The April 27 attack shook the tight knit Valley Springs community of about 7,400 people and set off a massive manhunt. Investigators did a door-to-door sweep of houses, storage sheds and horse stables.

The Calaveras County Sheriff's Department has made an arrest in the brutal stabbing death of 8 year-old Leila Fowler. Detectives arrested Fowler's 12-year-old brother shortly after 5 p.m. Saturday.

Sheriff Gary Kuntz made the announcement in front of the Valley Springs substation. It has been 15 days since Leila Fowler was reported murdered. Kuntz told reporters at a news conference that the 12-year-old boy will be charged with homicide.

The boy had told police last month that he encountered an intruder in the home on the day Leila Fowler was killed. He described the man as being tall with long gray hair.

The April 27 attack shook the tight knit Valley Springs community of about 7,400 people and set off a massive manhunt. Investigators did a door-to-door sweep of houses, storage sheds and horse stables.

Additional coverage:
CBS Sacramento: Calavares County Sherrif Press Conference


*

It's very sad, I know, but do you really think we will all be safer if we allow militarized police forces to put entire communities in Lockdown, conduct door-to-door searches without warrants, fully armed, while they hunt for whoever...in this case a vague description of a suspect by a 12 year old boy?

You have no problem with this? At all? Really?

*

justdrew - I'm sorry you didn't care for the last article I posted -

justdrew wrote: the whole message of that piece fits squarely with standard Republican party lines


I don't understand how this could be considered a Left/Right issue. This is an affront on everyone's rights.

There were other articles from Dan DeWalt, Phil Rockstroh and Kevin Gosztola titled: Canadian Government Under Harper Reclaims Authoritarian Counterterrorism Powers, where I asked (and no one replied) if this was going on in Canada.


conniption wrote:I have a question, Canada -
Are the police forces in Canada locking down schools and communities, conducting door-to-door searches in pursuit of whoever, these days? (Like they did in this story from the AP?)
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby IanEye » Tue May 14, 2013 5:50 pm

conniption wrote:It's very sad, I know, but do you really think we will all be safer if we allow militarized police forces to put entire communities in Lockdown, conduct door-to-door searches without warrants, fully armed, while they hunt for whoever...in this case a vague description of a suspect by a 12 year old boy?

You have no problem with this? At all? Really?



well, i guess that depends on how many dungeons full of abducted people they find in those communities while they are conducting those searches.

dead giveaway.
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue May 14, 2013 6:01 pm

conniption wrote:
I don't understand how this could be considered a Left/Right issue. This is an affront on everyone's rights.

There were other articles from Dan DeWalt, Phil Rockstroh and Kevin Gosztola titled: Canadian Government Under Harper Reclaims Authoritarian Counterterrorism Powers, where I asked (and no one replied) if this was going on in Canada.


conniption wrote:I have a question, Canada -
Are the police forces in Canada locking down schools and communities, conducting door-to-door searches in pursuit of whoever, these days? (Like they did in this story from the AP?)


I share your opinion that this isn't a left/right issue.

I'm Canadian (i guess you figured that out already, lol)... anyway was there a link in the original question where it says "like they did in this story from the AP?) I went back in the thread but couldn't see the post.. I'm sure I just missed it ..

anyway as far as I know there are no lockdowns or door to door searches happening here, however the Harper Government is tightening its totalitarian grip on us in the form of science minders, lack of freedom of information, shutting down Human Rights commissions, etc. And no one seems to give a fuck. it's completely devastating to sit here and watch it happen and no one I love will even share a facebook post about these issues.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby compared2what? » Tue May 14, 2013 8:18 pm

The bombings in Boston took place, apparently by coincidence, just before Oath Keepers, a national organization of current serving military, police officers, and veterans promoting adherence to their constitutional oath was to hold a large rally at Lexington Green. The Lexington Green board, one member of which had been openly hostile to Oath Keepers in the past, decided to use the crisis as an excuse to deny the rally permit already attained by the liberty minded group.


It's a lost cause, I know. But it's a contradiction in terms to be pro-Oath-Keeper but anti-martial-law. The Oath Keepers don't say they want martial law, it's true. But they don't have to call giving trained, armed forces the last word on what the law is "martial" for it to be that. It just is.

I mean, they formally assign people who aren't ex-military or ex-police to a lower order of membership than people who are. That's not very anti-martial-supremacy of them.

Depressing,
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue May 14, 2013 8:37 pm

compared2what? wrote:
The bombings in Boston took place, apparently by coincidence, just before Oath Keepers, a national organization of current serving military, police officers, and veterans promoting adherence to their constitutional oath was to hold a large rally at Lexington Green. The Lexington Green board, one member of which had been openly hostile to Oath Keepers in the past, decided to use the crisis as an excuse to deny the rally permit already attained by the liberty minded group.


It's a lost cause, I know. But it's a contradiction in terms to be pro-Oath-Keeper but anti-martial-law. The Oath Keepers don't say they want martial law, it's true. But they don't have to call giving trained, armed forces the last word on what the law is "martial" for it to be that. It just is.

I mean, they formally assign people who aren't ex-military or ex-police to a lower order of membership than people who are. That's not very anti-martial-supremacy of them.

Depressing,


There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims right there ^.

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization[1] that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers


Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.
In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects - such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.

The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted.

Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.

Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.


Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it."NOT on Our Watch!"
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.

Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.

We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.


One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord.

Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.

Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

Patrick Henry: "Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!"

Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.

Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Oath Keepers

The above list is not exhaustive but we do consider them to be clear tripwires – they form our “line in the sand,” and if we receive such orders, we will not obey them. Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh. If such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them.

NOTE: please also read our Principles of Our Republic We Are Sworn to Defend

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.ca/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html


What a shame that the media/industrial complex in the US has so managed to infiltrate and colonize the minds of a great many of its people to the point where they think that there are 'rights' that shouldn't be 'rights' if the 'Right' mentions them first. and vice versa, of course, but the phrasing is so much more poetic when using the word 'right' as opposed to left. :)
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby compared2what? » Tue May 14, 2013 9:43 pm

C_w wrote:There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims right there ^.


"IMO".



____________

edited to add the thing I was replying to, for clarity. and formatting. and typos.
Last edited by compared2what? on Tue May 14, 2013 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby compared2what? » Tue May 14, 2013 10:07 pm

C_w wrote:What a shame that the media/industrial complex in the US has so managed to infiltrate and colonize the minds of a great many of its people to the point where they think that there are 'rights' that shouldn't be 'rights' if the 'Right' mentions them first. and vice versa, of course, but the phrasing is so much more poetic when using the word 'right' as opposed to left.


There's no right that I think shouldn't be one if the right mentions it first. I never object to anything simply on those terms, with no explanation or justification.

And I don't get my opinions from the media-industrial complex, which I rarely use for anything except a baseline source for current topical info. Same as everybody else in the world. Including the online media who do opinion and commentary on it that includes frequently informing its readers that the media industrial complex in the US has managed to infiltrate and colonize the minds of a great many people.

They're mostly the product of experience, I guess. Plus reasoning by analogy. But they're just opinions. One person's, too. Some of them are probably wrong. And all of them are, no doubt, partial. Goes with the territory.

It would be great if right/left could be done away with. But right now, the people pushing for that the hardest are pushing crypto- and neo-fascist alternatives, as far as I can see. It's a longtime Bircher talking point, for example. LaRouchies are also very fond of it. And so are the kind of states'-rights.types that are still unhappy about the way the Civil War turned out. So it's not like I'm saying it just to be saying it. Those are all not-freedom-friendly groups.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby compared2what? » Tue May 14, 2013 10:53 pm

Canadian_watcher wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
The bombings in Boston took place, apparently by coincidence, just before Oath Keepers, a national organization of current serving military, police officers, and veterans promoting adherence to their constitutional oath was to hold a large rally at Lexington Green. The Lexington Green board, one member of which had been openly hostile to Oath Keepers in the past, decided to use the crisis as an excuse to deny the rally permit already attained by the liberty minded group.


It's a lost cause, I know. But it's a contradiction in terms to be pro-Oath-Keeper but anti-martial-law. The Oath Keepers don't say they want martial law, it's true. But they don't have to call giving trained, armed forces the last word on what the law is "martial" for it to be that. It just is.

I mean, they formally assign people who aren't ex-military or ex-police to a lower order of membership than people who are. That's not very anti-martial-supremacy of them.

Depressing,


There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims right there ^.


In the event that further explanation as to why it's my opinion is required:

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization[1] that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers


Right. In other words, they get the last word on whether or not it's the law. As I said. And they're trained and armed. As I said. So. They want to give the last word on what is and is not the law to trained, armed forces, which is exactly how it works under martial law.

Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey


I know. That's why I said:

I wrote:The Oath Keepers don't say they want martial law, it's true.


But please note. They don't say they will NOT do those things. They say they will NOT obey orders to do them. The entire raison d'etre of the group is, in fact, that they won't obey orders to do them. Not that they won't do them of their own accord. And when I look at that, I say to myself:

"Hmm. Are they saying that they have been ordered to do any of those things? Why, no. They're NOT. Are they protesting any imminent developments that make it likely they soon will be ordered to do those things? Nope. NOT that either. So. WTF are they making such a big deal about, then? Seemingly, they have no real complaints to make. Are they just ginning up hysteria about the prospect of the United States government blockading American cities and turning them into concentration camps that will resemble the Warsaw ghetto and the mass detention of citizens under conditions similar to those in which Japanese-Americans were held during WWII for no goddamn reason at all apart from that they do NOT have any more recent or trenchant incidents suitable for instituting an armed coup by militia members claiming to be so much more constitutional than the constitution that it compels them to replace the system it mandates with one in which trained, armed forces say what goes? Looks very much like it!"

Hence my opinion.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue May 14, 2013 11:05 pm

compared2what? wrote:
Canadian_watcher wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
The bombings in Boston took place, apparently by coincidence, just before Oath Keepers, a national organization of current serving military, police officers, and veterans promoting adherence to their constitutional oath was to hold a large rally at Lexington Green. The Lexington Green board, one member of which had been openly hostile to Oath Keepers in the past, decided to use the crisis as an excuse to deny the rally permit already attained by the liberty minded group.


It's a lost cause, I know. But it's a contradiction in terms to be pro-Oath-Keeper but anti-martial-law. The Oath Keepers don't say they want martial law, it's true. But they don't have to call giving trained, armed forces the last word on what the law is "martial" for it to be that. It just is.

I mean, they formally assign people who aren't ex-military or ex-police to a lower order of membership than people who are. That's not very anti-martial-supremacy of them.

Depressing,


There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims right there ^.


In the event that further explanation as to why it's my opinion is required:

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization[1] that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers


Right. In other words, they get the last word on whether or not it's the law. As I said. And they're trained and armed. As I said. So. They want to give the last word on what is and is not the law to trained, armed forces, which is exactly how it works under martial law.


I see where you're going with this, but I disagree.

compared2what? wrote:
Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey


I know. That's why I said:

I wrote:The Oath Keepers don't say they want martial law, it's true.


But please note. They don't say they will NOT do those things. They say they will NOT obey orders to do them. The entire raison d'etre of the group is, in fact, that they won't obey orders to do them. Not that they won't do them of their own accord. And when I look at that, I say to myself:

"Hmm. Are they saying that they have been ordered to do any of those things? Why, no. They're NOT. Are they protesting any imminent developments that make it likely they soon will be ordered to do those things? Nope. NOT that either. So. WTF are they making such a big deal about, then?


Are they making a big deal of it, or are you?
compared2what? wrote:Seemingly, they have no real complaints to make. Are they just ginning up hysteria about the prospect of the United States government blockading American cities and turning them into concentration camps that will resemble the Warsaw ghetto and the mass detention of citizens under conditions similar to those in which Japanese-Americans were held during WWII for no goddamn reason at all apart from that they do NOT have any more recent or trenchant incidents suitable for instituting an armed coup by militia members claiming to be so much more constitutional than the constitution that it compels them to replace the system it mandates with one in which trained, armed forces say what goes? Looks very much like it!"


Frist - they aren't complaining. From what I understand they are getting together to pledge that they won't do illegal things even if their government asks them to. In a country with so many young men raised without fathers, this is kind of what their fathers might have told them to do or not do. (Like mine did, even tho I'm a chick)

Second - where's the hysteria they are supposedly ginning up? At their rallies? Have you been to them? I haven't, so maybe.

Third - you're VERY difficult to follow most of the time, and this is no exception. It's me, it isn't you - my communication style is far different from yours. That being said, it appears in the last part of the above that you are suggesting that they might be fantasizing and loosely planning to stage a coup? ??? I think that'd be pretty fucking unlikely - I mean unless their numbers are way way way bigger and include people with access to the caches of weaponry, etc that would be necessary to pull something like that off. I'm way more frightened that the guys who DO already have command of all those resources might use them against the people than I am of a patriot group doing it. But to each her own.

compared2what? wrote:Hence my opinion.


yes, thanks. It's yours.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby justdrew » Tue May 14, 2013 11:21 pm

Oaf Keepers is nothing but an recruiting tool for paranoid lunatic righting fascist assholes who are EXACTLY working day and night to take over this country. That anti-government paranoia is the number one threat to this nation, the world, and probably life on earth.

READ:
http://www.motherjones.com/print/42771
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby compared2what? » Wed May 15, 2013 12:34 am

Canadian_watcher wrote:

I see where you're going with this, but I disagree.


That's fine. Of course. Not like you need me to say it to make it so. But fwiw, I do say so.

compared2what? wrote:
Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey


I know. That's why I said:

I wrote:The Oath Keepers don't say they want martial law, it's true.


But please note. They don't say they will NOT do those things. They say they will NOT obey orders to do them. The entire raison d'etre of the group is, in fact, that they won't obey orders to do them. Not that they won't do them of their own accord. And when I look at that, I say to myself:

"Hmm. Are they saying that they have been ordered to do any of those things? Why, no. They're NOT. Are they protesting any imminent developments that make it likely they soon will be ordered to do those things? Nope. NOT that either. So. WTF are they making such a big deal about, then?


Are they making a big deal of it, or are you?


I'd say they were. I mean, I wouldn't obey anyone's orders to blockade people into concentration camps either.

But I like to think that my all-around non-servility and the cleanliness of my record wrt crimes against humanity speaks for itself in that regard well enough to render formal declarations unnecessary, leaving me with that much more energy to devote to objecting to it when it occurs.

Seems to me like they're protesting too much, basically.

compared2what? wrote:Seemingly, they have no real complaints to make. [etc., snip, snip, snip]


Frist - they aren't complaining. From what I understand they are getting together to pledge that they won't do illegal things even if their government asks them to. In a country with so many young men raised without fathers, this is kind of what their fathers might have told them to do or not do. (Like mine did, even tho I'm a chick)


Good for him. As I wish everyone's did.

But I don't think anybody says "N-O-T NOT" that many times in that few words unless they're complaining or being driven to within an inch of crazy by a kitchen full of exceptionally energetic two-year-olds who have just had cake and ice cream.

IOW: Refusing to do something in advance of being told to when there's no very great likelihood of receiving the order is, effectively, a complaint. Or at least a statement of strong dissatisfaction.

Second - where's the hysteria they are supposedly ginning up? At their rallies? Have you been to them? I haven't, so maybe.


No. I haven't. But they're repeatedly evoking the specter of such extreme abuses of power by the present-day U.S. government in that declaration that they have to go all the way back to the Boer fucking War to come up with examples that illustrate what they're talking about. Which (to me) suggests that they're intentionally trying to instill more fear and alarm over the prospect of them than they can produce any contemporary justification for doing.

Third - you're VERY difficult to follow most of the time, and this is no exception. It's me, it isn't you


Are you kidding? Just look at what I wrote in the last part of my reply. It's me.

- my communication style is far different from yours. That being said, it appears in the last part of the above that you are suggesting that they might be fantasizing and loosely planning to stage a coup? ??? I think that'd be pretty fucking unlikely - I mean unless their numbers are way way way bigger and include people with access to the caches of weaponry, etc that would be necessary to pull something like that off. I'm way more frightened that the guys who DO already have command of all those resources might use them against the people than I am of a patriot group doing it. But to each her own.


Indeed. But fwiw, yes. That is what I'm suggesting. But so are they:

Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh.


Or I'd say so, at least.

I agree that it's not going to happen, like, tomorrow. But all armed coups by disaffected ex-military-staffed militias have to start somewhere. I mean, if the Beer Hall Putsch part of the movement-building goes well enough, it might not even end up having to be armed. You never know.

I do concede that there's nothing to object to at this point besides rhetoric, though. But for reasons stated, I really do see a problem there.

Hence...

You know. Agreement not demanded or expected. It's just my opinion.
____________

EDITED to correct minor errors.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby compared2what? » Wed May 15, 2013 1:11 am

justdrew wrote:Oaf Keepers is nothing but an recruiting tool for paranoid lunatic righting fascist assholes who are EXACTLY working day and night to take over this country. That anti-government paranoia is the number one threat to this nation, the world, and probably life on earth.

READ:
http://www.motherjones.com/print/42771


I have to admit that if that's the worst anyone can come up with, they're keeping it very, very clean. Which isn't less scary, if you think as I do. But it explains why some don't, too. To be fair. I do wish they wouldn't say stuff like this, though:

From the podium, ex-sheriff Mack told the crowd that he wished he'd been the officer ordered to escort Rosa Parks off the bus, because not only would he have refused, he would have helped her home and stood guard there. These days, he said, it's not African Americans who are under attack, but Christians, constitutionalists, and people who uphold family values: This time "it's going to be Rosa Parks the gun owner, Rosa Parks the tax evader, or Rosa Parks the home-schooler."


Like African-Americans aren't Christians, first of all. And, yeah. The prisons are full of people who were railroaded by cops who figured all upholders of family values were criminals anyway, so why not?

He might as well have said he didn't care who killed Rosa Parks for robbing a liquor store, as long as someone did. Because it's very crypto-,but that is what he's saying, imo.

Sorry. Didn't mean to oath-keeper-jack the thread.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby justdrew » Wed May 15, 2013 1:29 am

they're just one concentration in the constellation, of course they're try to make it look passable, but look at the company they keep. I think the technique is called "popular front"
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

Postby compared2what? » Wed May 15, 2013 1:52 am

justdrew wrote:they're just one concentration in the constellation, of course they're try to make it look passable, but look at the company they keep. I think the technique is called "popular front"


That's usually totalitarian left, I think. More like Third-Position populism, which is where the beyond right-left talking point comes from to begin with. Although Mussolini used it, too, it's really more of a Peronista thing, as a thing-in-itself, traditionally. If we're going so wide with our historical references as to lose all credibility, like I was just whining about the Oath Keepers for doing.

^^That's not a fully fair comparison, IOW. But it's generally true that "beyond-right-left" signifies far-right movements with totalitarian leanings and "popular front".signifies far-left movements with totalitarian leanings, historically.

In case anyone wants to stop bothering with candidates and just vote for the jargon.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests